Ask a Homosexual

[odaiko]

Do male homosexuals prefer male children to female children when adopting?

Is it the opposite for lesbians?

As a gay man, I would take either, but I would probably prefer female children. If I had a son I would need to find a good hetero male role model he could hang out with, because if he develops typical straight male interests (sports, cars, fixing things) I would be completely clueless... but I would always be available to discuss ballet and Madonna's career trajectory.

[posnerd]

Why do some homosexuals, who by definition do not wish to engage in heterosexual sex, desire to have children, whom are typically created by said action?

Well, i won't presume to hijack the role of resident expert here; instead, I will pose a counter-question: why do so many heterosexuals have sex, which biologically is for the purpose of making children, when they don't want children?

I think many people would answer that their is an innate drive to procreate... sex is pleasurable... and the high cost of raising a child coupled with technological advancement allows us to enjoy sexual intercourse while forgoing conception and the rearing of a child.

[Miss P]

Do male homosexuals prefer male children to female children when adopting?

Is it the opposite for lesbians?

I had never heard this.  I know gay men with boys (only one family) and lots of lesbians with both boys and girls.  I think, given the fact that it is very common for women (single mothers, for instance) to be primary caregivers to both male and female children, women might have less of the anxiety Odaiko describes about having children of one sex or the other.  And Odaiko, I don't think you should worry too much.  Plenty of women who are helpless in sports and such have reared perfectly butchity little boys.  You would do just fine.  

[Miss P]

Why do some homosexuals, who by definition do not wish to engage in heterosexual sex, desire to have children, whom are typically created by said action?

Well, i won't presume to hijack the role of resident expert here; instead, I will pose a counter-question: why do so many heterosexuals have sex, which biologically is for the purpose of making children, when they don't want children?

I think many people would answer that their is an innate drive to procreate... sex is pleasurable... and the high cost or raising a child coupled with technological advancement allows us to enjoy sexual intercourse while forgoing conception and the rearing of a child.

So your question was essentially why anyone would want to have children given the fact that it is not a biological imperative?  I think that's a question for a different thread.

[posnerd]

Why do some homosexuals, who by definition do not wish to engage in heterosexual sex, desire to have children, whom are typically created by said action?

Well, i won't presume to hijack the role of resident expert here; instead, I will pose a counter-question: why do so many heterosexuals have sex, which biologically is for the purpose of making children, when they don't want children?

I think many people would answer that their is an innate drive to procreate... sex is pleasurable... and the high cost or raising a child coupled with technological advancement allows us to enjoy sexual intercourse while forgoing conception and the rearing of a child.

So your question was essentially why anyone would want to have children given the fact that it is not a biological imperative?  I think that's a question for a different thread.

Is it a fact?  Please cite.

[Miss P]

Why do some homosexuals, who by definition do not wish to engage in heterosexual sex, desire to have children, whom are typically created by said action?

Well, i won't presume to hijack the role of resident expert here; instead, I will pose a counter-question: why do so many heterosexuals have sex, which biologically is for the purpose of making children, when they don't want children?

I think many people would answer that their is an innate drive to procreate... sex is pleasurable... and the high cost or raising a child coupled with technological advancement allows us to enjoy sexual intercourse while forgoing conception and the rearing of a child.

So your question was essentially why anyone would want to have children given the fact that it is not a biological imperative?  I think that's a question for a different thread.

Is it a fact?  Please cite.

Can't tell if this is a lame attempt at trolling or if you are sincere and confused.  I meant that the question you asked should not be limited to homosexuals since we live in an era when even heterosexual intercourse is not necessarily procreative -- everyone can have whatever form of sex they want without reproducing.  And a number of people have children without having reproductive sex. 

[posnerd]

Why do some homosexuals, who by definition do not wish to engage in heterosexual sex, desire to have children, whom are typically created by said action?

Well, i won't presume to hijack the role of resident expert here; instead, I will pose a counter-question: why do so many heterosexuals have sex, which biologically is for the purpose of making children, when they don't want children?

Yes, why do you want to eat* souffles that you don't care to learn to cook?  Why do you want to drive* cars that you haven't yourself learned to manufacture, or even fix?  Why do you want to take advantage* of medical advances that you haven't yourself even investigated?  etc.

No offense, but this just seems like nonsense to me.  Is it really the fact that heterosexuals are able to produce children through their sexual intercourse what legitimates their family choices?  What about people with fertility and health problems?  What about people who adopt for religious and moral purposes? 

*not that I am advocating eating, driving, or taking advantage of children.

I never stated that the capability to produce children legitamized family choices.  However, you fail to consider that both groups, those that are infertile and religious, could possess a desire to procreate.  You seem to be sidestepping the question.  I never addressed adoption rights.

As for your opening analogies, it seems nonsensical that one would equate the creation of a child, the union of your genes and another's to create a new and unique form of life, to the creation of a consumable good such as a souffle or an automobile.
 

[posnerd]

Why do some homosexuals, who by definition do not wish to engage in heterosexual sex, desire to have children, whom are typically created by said action?

Well, i won't presume to hijack the role of resident expert here; instead, I will pose a counter-question: why do so many heterosexuals have sex, which biologically is for the purpose of making children, when they don't want children?

I think many people would answer that their is an innate drive to procreate... sex is pleasurable... and the high cost or raising a child coupled with technological advancement allows us to enjoy sexual intercourse while forgoing conception and the rearing of a child.

So your question was essentially why anyone would want to have children given the fact that it is not a biological imperative?  I think that's a question for a different thread.

Is it a fact?  Please cite.

Can't tell if this is a lame attempt at trolling or if you are sincere and confused.  I meant that the question you asked should not be limited to homosexuals since we live in an era when even heterosexual intercourse is not necessarily procreative -- everyone can have whatever form of sex they want without reproducing.  And a number of people have children without having reproductive sex. 

You misread my statement.  I would argue that there IS a biological imperative to procreate.  The fact that the result of heterosexual intercourse does not lead to conception and that individuals can possess children without engaging in reproductive sex does not diminish that claim.

[Miss P]

Why do some homosexuals, who by definition do not wish to engage in heterosexual sex, desire to have children, whom are typically created by said action?

Well, i won't presume to hijack the role of resident expert here; instead, I will pose a counter-question: why do so many heterosexuals have sex, which biologically is for the purpose of making children, when they don't want children?

Yes, why do you want to eat* souffles that you don't care to learn to cook?  Why do you want to drive* cars that you haven't yourself learned to manufacture, or even fix?  Why do you want to take advantage* of medical advances that you haven't yourself even investigated?  etc.

No offense, but this just seems like nonsense to me.  Is it really the fact that heterosexuals are able to produce children through their sexual intercourse what legitimates their family choices?  What about people with fertility and health problems?  What about people who adopt for religious and moral purposes? 

*not that I am advocating eating, driving, or taking advantage of children.

I never stated that the capability to produce children legitamized family choices.  However, you fail to consider that both groups, those that are infertile and religious, could possess a desire to procreate.  You seem to be sidestepping the question.  I never addressed adoption rights.

As for your opening analogies, it seems nonsensical that one would equate the creation of a child, the union of your genes and another's to create a new and unique form of life, to the creation of a consumable good such as a souffle or an automobile.
 

Okay, fine.  Here's the thing: I do not think that most people who have children or who want to have children want to do so because they desire heterosexual vaginal intercourse.  I think a number of them may want to have heterosexual vaginal intercourse, and some of them may not.  And just as you say that people who have fertility problems and have children via adoption or artificial insemination, or people who choose to adopt for other reasons, possess a desire to procreate, I imagine a number of homosexuals possess a desire to procreate.  I don't believe this desire is tied to the sex act, and I think it is rather crude for you to suggest otherwise.  

You suggest that my (half-joking) analogies demean children.  I think rather that your reducing the desire to rear children to heterosexual lust demeans childbearing and parenting.

[Miss P]

Why do some homosexuals, who by definition do not wish to engage in heterosexual sex, desire to have children, whom are typically created by said action?

Well, i won't presume to hijack the role of resident expert here; instead, I will pose a counter-question: why do so many heterosexuals have sex, which biologically is for the purpose of making children, when they don't want children?

I think many people would answer that their is an innate drive to procreate... sex is pleasurable... and the high cost or raising a child coupled with technological advancement allows us to enjoy sexual intercourse while forgoing conception and the rearing of a child.

So your question was essentially why anyone would want to have children given the fact that it is not a biological imperative?  I think that's a question for a different thread.

Is it a fact?  Please cite.

Can't tell if this is a lame attempt at trolling or if you are sincere and confused.  I meant that the question you asked should not be limited to homosexuals since we live in an era when even heterosexual intercourse is not necessarily procreative -- everyone can have whatever form of sex they want without reproducing.  And a number of people have children without having reproductive sex. 

You misread my statement.  I would argue that there IS a biological imperative to procreate.  The fact that the result of heterosexual intercourse does not lead to conception and that individuals can possess children without engaging in reproductive sex does not diminish that claim.

I didn't misread anything.  You said that some people would argue that there is a biological imperative, and then seemed to refute (or at least muddle) it by suggesting that contraception permits people to satisfy heterosexual lust without having children.  I don't believe that there is a biological imperative to procreate -- at least not on an individual level -- but because I am not interested in arguing that point, here:

If some people do, indeed, experience this "biological imperative" in terms of heterosexual lust, as you suggest, others may want to have children for other reasons, from love for children to pleasing their parents to thinking that it is the right thing to do for the planet to populating their church pews to an infinite number of other things.  Heterosexual lust is not a necessary element of the desire to have children or a family.